Skywolf the Scribbler:BetterMetalSnake: Bill Nye played a big role in developing my love of science. Because of his show I became curious about science, began to read more and ended up stumbling into Carl Sagan. I never turned back. Thanks, Science Guy.

Skywolf the Scribbler:

I am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

And I just need to point out that you might not know what intelligence is. While the definitive definition is still under debate (cognitive psychology is a hoot), none of the viable options look anything like what you typed out. It's fine to have a lay-definition of a concept, but you should probably know a lay definition won't get much traction on Fark.

I have an eidetic memory and a grasp of logic which may indicate that I have more complex than average neural interconnections. Regardless, I have to make the decision to open a new tab and review how electricity works, and to read back through books on quantum physics, to maintain a working knowledge of those and other subjects.

Grasp of logic? Let's not go that far, but you do have a talent for being verbose and saying very little. There is a place for you in congress.

BetterMetalSnake:Bill Nye played a big role in developing my love of science. Because of his show I became curious about science, began to read more and ended up stumbling into Carl Sagan. I never turned back. Thanks, Science Guy.

Skywolf the Scribbler:

I am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

And I just need to point out that you might not know what intelligence is. While the definitive definition is still under debate (cognitive psychology is a hoot), none of the viable options look anything like what you typed out. It's fine to have a lay-definition of a concept, but you should probably know a lay definition won't get much traction on Fark.

For now, most lay sciencers accept Pattern Recognition as the simple index of intelligence.And then it gets all sciency and hard stuff.

cameroncrazy1984:THE GREAT NAME: ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

You have consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, both experimental and historical. You have no credibility, so please - by all means - cite some peer reviewed work that supports your position.

Difficulty: Throwing up your hands and shouting that climatology isn't a scientific discipline is equivalent to you admitting you can't back up your claims.

Please explain...

Well, for one, consistently claiming that zero climatology papers out of about 19,000 have evidence of anthropogenic global warming, despite all evidence to the contrary.

There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.

I notice that your mode of debate requires you to change your oponent's claims in the hopes that casual readers are fooled. I will simply respond by bringing their attention to the fact, and they can go back up the thread if they feel like it. Certainly, this trick is going to hurt your credibility more than mine.

Like you should talk. All you've done in this thread is handwave about a "rubber-stamp" that you can't prove.

He does have you on the skepticism part though. The four steps you linked is a rational chain of thoughts (call them hypotheses if you like). As a scientist, it would behoove you to continue to disprove these things in a logical and consistent manner. This is how science works and if climatology continues to successfully address these issues, it will gain more support. Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate. If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.

ph0rk:No, you haven't. You've provided more data points supporting the claim, but you haven't proven anything about the mechanisms involved.

That's because I didn't include how magnetism actually works. That's now how scientific papers are written. Ideas are built off of other ideas. If I were to write a white paper on how magnets stuck to my refrigerator, does that mean that I have to include, in detail, how magnetism works every time?

That's why you see citations everywhere.

ph0rk:mainstreet62: ph0rk: Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science.

DON.MAC:There is an odd corner of science that he tends to avoid that I wished had more coverage. If you start with the hypothesis that the world is flat, you can run experiments to successfully navigate based on a flat world and it works. You can also navigate all the way around the world using the same assumptions and it still works. The fact that a key part of the hypotheses is wrong doesn't mean the science is wrong, it means the assumptions about reality relating to the experiment are wrong. That isn't bad science, it is stupid science. Either way, sometimes that can lead to good science. We found out a great deal about chemistry because of some very broken concepts in alchemy. Astrology funded many of the early developments in astronomy observations as well as providing a stable nomenclature. I would like to think that humans have grown beyond fluffy pseudoscience that but reality has lead me to a different hypothesis.

You, Sir, have recognized a pattern of human behavior.The herd moves slowly and only by emotion. Reason is a pathetic no show.

THE GREAT NAME:There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.

Okay. Name one of them. Have you read them? Surely you've read all of them if you can claim without equivocation (i'm awake now!) that non papers provide this evidence.

mainstreet62:That's because I didn't include how magnetism actually works. That's now how scientific papers are written. Ideas are built off of other ideas. If I were to write a white paper on how magnets stuck to my refrigerator, does that mean that I have to include, in detail, how magnetism works every time?

That's why you see citations everywhere

Ok. Tell you what, go use words like "prove" in lab reports and let me know how quickly you get an A in that chemistry lab course. I'd say tell me how quickly you pass, but standards aren't what they used to be (which is why we have these problems to begin with).

Abuse Liability:Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate. If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.

No, I won't say that, and I won't answer your silly questions because quite obviously you've already made up your mind and if 13,000 papers proving climate change is anthropogenic don't change your mind, why would I think you would believe me?

mbillips:How then do you rationalize the Bible getting everything about the inception of the universe and life in the wrong order, and having two different timelines in Genesis I and II? Other than it's a story made up by people who didn't know enough to come up with a better explanation, like all mythology, and that it's an anthology of often conflicting myths, prayers and oral history? It's fairly well documented that people believed the earth was flat prior to the theorizing of Greek astronomers in the 2nd century BC, so it's counterintuitive to conclude that the ancient Hebrews were any exception.

Different translations fix the parts of Genesis. The areas of the origins of the different stories are well documented.One odd thing is sex led to original sin which lead to death but biologically it is somewhat true in that cell aging only seemed to occur after sexual reproduction. Asexual cells are often immortal if they don't get eaten.

The Egyptians had accounted for a round earth when they were surveying out to the current borders near Sudan and Libya about 2000 BC.

Why have you posted a comment questioning this when you could simply look up the thread and see for yourself? Then you would know for sure, right? Oh yes, because you prefer arguing to discovering facts. Like the rest of the climate alarmists.

Matthew Keene:While you may argue whether or not global warming is occurring, and man is causing it, what does it hurt to do something to clean up the atmosphere? OMG, we've got fresh air and a livable planet.

Because apparently some people think an entirely new industry will somehow hurt our economy.

THE GREAT NAME:ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: That is my claim (stop changing it).

Was it?

Why have you posted a comment questioning this when you could simply look up the thread and see for yourself? Then you would know for sure, right? Oh yes, because you prefer arguing to discovering facts. Like the rest of the climate alarmists.

I find it really odd that you can state that literally no papers have evidence of positive feedback loops, and yet you cannot somehow name even a single paper published. Or at least, you are very averse to doing so.

cameroncrazy1984:THE GREAT NAME: There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.

Okay. Name one of them. Have you read them? Surely you've read all of them if you can claim without equivocation (i'm awake now!) that non papers provide this evidence.

So name one of them.

You want me to name a paper that doesn't exist? You really are crazy.

WARMING TO USERS: user cameroncrazy1984 modifies others' arguments to ones he can win against. Always check his followups for misrepresentations.

Skywolf the Scribbler:BetterMetalSnake: Bill Nye played a big role in developing my love of science. Because of his show I became curious about science, began to read more and ended up stumbling into Carl Sagan. I never turned back. Thanks, Science Guy.

Skywolf the Scribbler:

I am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

And I just need to point out that you might not know what intelligence is. While the definitive definition is still under debate (cognitive psychology is a hoot), none of the viable options look anything like what you typed out. It's fine to have a lay-definition of a concept, but you should probably know a lay definition won't get much traction on Fark.

I have an eidetic memory and a grasp of logic which may indicate that I have more complex than average neural interconnections. Regardless, I have to make the decision to open a new tab and review how electricity works, and to read back through books on quantum physics, to maintain a working knowledge of those and other subjects.

Goodluckfox:I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?

because science only belongs to the PHD's and the rest of us mere mortals should just try not to overwork our puny brains? I'm not sure what your complaint is here.

Did I say that the believers in Anthropogenic Global Warming should be chained to a tree overnight in Minnesota in January? Of course I did. Elsewhere on my blog. But I just wanted to repeat myself.

There is no such thing as a "balance of nature." The Terrestrial Biosphere is a dynamic environment within a dynamic universe. The average planetary temperature varied from tropical to almost frozen over long before Man ever appeared on the scene and will continue to do so long after Man has conquered the stars.

No amount of propaganda, the exercise of coercive force by the greens and their socialist allies will ever change these facts.

There is a reason that the Greens are commonly called tree huggers, trees can not bite nor can they tell the environmentalists to bugger off.

THE GREAT NAME:cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.

Okay. Name one of them. Have you read them? Surely you've read all of them if you can claim without equivocation (i'm awake now!) that non papers provide this evidence.

So name one of them.

You want me to name a paper that doesn't exist? You really are crazy.

WARMING TO USERS: user cameroncrazy1984 modifies others' arguments to ones he can win against. Always check his followups for misrepresentations.

What have I misrepresented? Did you not claim that zero papers provide evidence of positive feedback loops? How is it modifying your claim to ask for one of these paper that does not provide evidence of positive feedback loops? Is it possible that you just can't name one of these papers that don't have evidence?

Stop worshiping TV personality, Bill Nye. First he was mad that no one believed in "global warming." Now that it snows in summer, he calls it "climate change." News flash! Climates change! It's not that people don't believe in natural fluctuations of climate, it's that many people don't think it's such a big deal that they need to stop living (or in some cases flying on private jets).

Abuse Liability:cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: People, don't fall for this man's trick.

Like you should talk. All you've done in this thread is handwave about a "rubber-stamp" that you can't prove.

He does have you on the skepticism part though. The four steps you linked is a rational chain of thoughts (call them hypotheses if you like). As a scientist, it would behoove you to continue to disprove these things in a logical and consistent manner. This is how science works and if climatology continues to successfully address these issues, it will gain more support. Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate. If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.

Except that's already happened. The evidence is there. Climate change deniers aren't people with a compelling rival theory. They are a bunch of people who, for political or emotional reasons, don't like the conclusion. You can't reason against that because they are essentially unreasonable. These arguments are about getting those people to believe not knock down their nonexistant scientific criticisms.

DON.MAC:mbillips: How then do you rationalize the Bible getting everything about the inception of the universe and life in the wrong order, and having two different timelines in Genesis I and II? Other than it's a story made up by people who didn't know enough to come up with a better explanation, like all mythology, and that it's an anthology of often conflicting myths, prayers and oral history? It's fairly well documented that people believed the earth was flat prior to the theorizing of Greek astronomers in the 2nd century BC, so it's counterintuitive to conclude that the ancient Hebrews were any exception.

Different translations fix the parts of Genesis. The areas of the origins of the different stories are well documented.One odd thing is sex led to original sin which lead to death but biologically it is somewhat true in that cell aging only seemed to occur after sexual reproduction. Asexual cells are often immortal if they don't get eaten.

The Egyptians had accounted for a round earth when they were surveying out to the current borders near Sudan and Libya about 2000 BC.

Watching people try to Rationalize contradicting portions of the Bible, And the portions that contradict science, Is like watching a comic book fan try to rationalize every issue of Superman as one cohesive canon story.

cameroncrazy1984:Abuse Liability: Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate. If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.

No, I won't say that, and I won't answer your silly questions because quite obviously you've already made up your mind and if 13,000 papers proving climate change is anthropogenic don't change your mind, why would I think you would believe me?

I didn't ask any questions. Do you read words and return thoughtful replies are you more a reactionary who could be described as someone who... how did you put it 'already made up your mind' before you began typing? I simply made a statement.

Skywolf the Scribbler:mbillips: OK, I'll concede the point. How then do you rationalize the Bible getting everything about the inception of the universe and life in the wrong order, and having two different timelines in Genesis I and II? Other than it's a story made up by people who didn't know enough to come up with a better explanation, like all mythology, and that it's an anthology of often conflicting myths, prayers and oral history? It's fairly well documented that people believed the earth was flat prior to the theorizing of Greek astronomers in the 2nd century BC, so it's counterintuitive to conclude that the ancient Hebrews were any exception.

I read back through the chapters to check, and I don't see a contradiction. I agree, it does not correlate to the theory of evolution.

Genesis 1:

1 The universe, including the earth2 The entities of light and darkness3 Sky, earth, and cloud cover4 Continents or one continent and ocean5 Flora6 Celestial bodies to actually account for producing light so that people may have a choice whether or not to believe in God7 Fauna8 Humanity

Genesis 2:

1 Universe and the earth (vs 4)2 Humans created after flora (vs 5-7)3 Humans created after animals (vs 19)

Apropos the Israelite and early culture's misconceptions of physical laws, it has to do with the immutability of facts. They may have believed one thing to be true, but it does not mean that the Bible upholds it; simply, it is a series of documents originally written for the Israelite culture, and not for ours, and as such the syntax reflects the way that the cultures viewed things. The New Covenant specifically notes that the end times will be a trial for Christians, and one part of that may well be the simple fact that historical events lose credibility over time until they are known only from historical majority evidence, and therefore some people choose to consider them fables. If people inhabit the earth until the year 3 million A.D., then perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge will be k ...

Something's wrong with your reading comprehension. Genesis 2:1-4 conclude the first version of the creation myth from Genesis I, the seven-day one where humanity is created last, male and female. Genesis 2:5 begins a second creation myth, saying that the events occur BEFORE there were plants and animals or any water (Genesis 2:4-5). Genesis 2:6, it rains. Genesis 2:7, man is created from the dirt. Genesis 2:8, God plants the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:19-20, animals are created AFTER Adam, and Adam names them, but no spouse (help meet) appears from among them (WTF?). Genesis 2:21-22, God makes a woman (unnamed) from Adam's rib. That's not a retelling; that's a contradictory version.

Why would anyone conclude that the "historical facts" in Genesis are any more credible than Greek fables about the Gods of Olympus, or Norse sagas about ice giants? There actually is a discipline called history, as well as a science of archaeology, that does a pretty good job of sorting fact from fiction in the Bible. The Golden Gate Bridge would leave archaeological evidence of itself, unlike, say Noah's ark or the Tower of Babel.

Abuse Liability:cameroncrazy1984: Abuse Liability: Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate. If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.

No, I won't say that, and I won't answer your silly questions because quite obviously you've already made up your mind and if 13,000 papers proving climate change is anthropogenic don't change your mind, why would I think you would believe me?

I didn't ask any questions. Do you read words and return thoughtful replies are you more a reactionary who could be described as someone who... how did you put it 'already made up your mind' before you began typing? I simply made a statement.

Your statement implies that everyone who understands climate science will tell you that "we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately," which also implies that your mind is made up on the matter.

Skywolf the Scribbler:mbillips: OK, I'll concede the point. How then do you rationalize the Bible getting everything about the inception of the universe and life in the wrong order, and having two different timelines in Genesis I and II? Other than it's a story made up by people who didn't know enough to come up with a better explanation, like all mythology, and that it's an anthology of often conflicting myths, prayers and oral history? It's fairly well documented that people believed the earth was flat prior to the theorizing of Greek astronomers in the 2nd century BC, so it's counterintuitive to conclude that the ancient Hebrews were any exception.

I read back through the chapters to check, and I don't see a contradiction. I agree, it does not correlate to the theory of evolution.

Genesis 1:

1 The universe, including the earth2 The entities of light and darkness3 Sky, earth, and cloud cover4 Continents or one continent and ocean5 Flora6 Celestial bodies to actually account for producing light so that people may have a choice whether or not to believe in God7 Fauna8 Humanity

Genesis 2:

1 Universe and the earth (vs 4)2 Humans created after flora (vs 5-7)3 Humans created after animals (vs 19)

Apropos the Israelite and early culture's misconceptions of physical laws, it has to do with the immutability of facts. They may have believed one thing to be true, but it does not mean that the Bible upholds it; simply, it is a series of documents originally written for the Israelite culture, and not for ours, and as such the syntax reflects the way that the cultures viewed things. The New Covenant specifically notes that the end times will be a trial for Christians, and one part of that may well be the simple fact that historical events lose credibility over time until they are known only from historical majority evidence, and therefore some people choose to consider them fables. If people inhabit the earth until the year 3 million A.D., then perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge will be k ...

So God created light that came from no source, but that would take away people's free will so he then created stars to trick people into thinking that's where light really comes from so that we can wonder if God really did create light?Makes total sense.

PC LOAD LETTER:THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Oh, I just love a "debate" over the word specific interpretation of a short story collection, millennia old, originally passed down verbally, translated through languages long gone, and now taken up as The Book.You go, Go BIG.

cameroncrazy1984:Abuse Liability: cameroncrazy1984: Abuse Liability: Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate. If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.

No, I won't say that, and I won't answer your silly questions because quite obviously you've already made up your mind and if 13,000 papers proving climate change is anthropogenic don't change your mind, why would I think you would believe me?

I didn't ask any questions. Do you read words and return thoughtful replies are you more a reactionary who could be described as someone who... how did you put it 'already made up your mind' before you began typing? I simply made a statement.

Your statement implies that everyone who understands climate science will tell you that "we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately," which also implies that your mind is made up on the matter.

Hardly, did you notice the little part where I mentioned that climatology has continued to successfully address these issues? What's funny is we're both probably on the same side, i was just criticizing you for mocking the scientific process. It's our job to poke holes. I believe we should all do what we can to minimize CO2 emissions. I drive a honda civic and live as close to work as I can reasonably afford. I'm still haven't decided whether or not I believe we should make policy changes that would divert resources away from say, the NIH, in order to fund 'possible' cleanup efforts